Impact of a provider-level incentive on smoking cessation treatment use: A secondary dataset analysis using administrative claims data and a cross-sectional survey in Japanese health check-up settings (N-EQUITY2203)

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals are recommended to deliver smoking cessation support (SCS) to smokers. However, the effectiveness of provider-level financial incentives on smoker's behaviors, including the use of smoking cessation treatment (SCT), has been controversial. The aim of this observational study was to explore the association of a provider-level incentive to deliver a general lifestyle intervention, including SCS, with the smoker's use of SCT, and describe the current state of and barriers to delivering SCS at health check-up settings. METHODS: This observational study in a health check-up setting consisted of: 1) a retrospective, quasi-experimental study through secondary use of an administrative claims database between 2018 and 2020; and 2) a cross-sectional questionnaire survey in 2023. Change in the proportion of SCT users pre- and post-introduction of the incentive was analyzed using a claims database, employing a difference-in-difference (DID) approach using adjusted linear regression. To describe SCS at health check-up settings, a cross-sectional survey was sent to 26 health check-up centers that had received the incentives which requested a response from a healthcare professional at each center. Responses were presented as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: DID analysis using data for 126137 smokers revealed no significant change in the proportion of SCT users following introduction of the provider-level incentive (DID= -0.15; 95% CI: -1.09-0.80 per 1000 smokers, p=0.759). The survey, which received responses from 24 health check-up centers, showed that only 27% of these centers provided smokers with contact information for SCT services. Furthermore, 71% and 67% of centers cited a lack of resources and self-efficacy, respectively, as perceived barriers to the delivery of SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The provider-level incentive to deliver the general lifestyle intervention was not associated with SCT use in health check-up settings. Increasing SCT use may require strategies aimed at overcoming barriers to the delivery of SCS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Tobacco Induced Diseases
Published
2026-05-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/218804
Primary Topic
Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of a provider-level incentive on smoking cessation treatment use: A secondary dataset analysis using administrative claims data and a cross-sectional survey in Japanese health check-up settings (N-EQUITY2203)

Taichi Shimazu, Junko Saito, Miyuki Odawara, Aya Kuchiba et al.
Tobacco Induced Diseases
Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
article

Impact of a provider-level incentive on smoking cessation treatment use: A secondary dataset analysis using administrative claims data and a cross-sectional survey in Japanese health check-up settings (N-EQUITY2203)

Taichi Shimazu, Junko Saito, Miyuki Odawara, Aya Kuchiba, Keiichi Yuwaki, Koshiro Kanaoka, Maiko Fujimori, Manami Inoue
article en

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare professionals are recommended to deliver smoking cessation support (SCS) to smokers. However, the effectiveness of provider-level financial incentives on smoker's behaviors, including the use of smoking cessation treatment (SCT), has been controversial. The aim of this observational study was to explore the association of a provider-level incentive to deliver a general lifestyle intervention, including SCS, with the smoker's use of SCT, and describe the current state of and barriers to delivering SCS at health check-up settings. METHODS: This observational study in a health check-up setting consisted of: 1) a retrospective, quasi-experimental study through secondary use of an administrative claims database between 2018 and 2020; and 2) a cross-sectional questionnaire survey in 2023. Change in the proportion of SCT users pre- and post-introduction of the incentive was analyzed using a claims database, employing a difference-in-difference (DID) approach using adjusted linear regression. To describe SCS at health check-up settings, a cross-sectional survey was sent to 26 health check-up centers that had received the incentives which requested a response from a healthcare professional at each center. Responses were presented as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: DID analysis using data for 126137 smokers revealed no significant change in the proportion of SCT users following introduction of the provider-level incentive (DID= -0.15; 95% CI: -1.09-0.80 per 1000 smokers, p=0.759). The survey, which received responses from 24 health check-up centers, showed that only 27% of these centers provided smokers with contact information for SCT services. Furthermore, 71% and 67% of centers cited a lack of resources and self-efficacy, respectively, as perceived barriers to the delivery of SCS. CONCLUSIONS: The provider-level incentive to deliver the general lifestyle intervention was not associated with SCT use in health check-up settings. Increasing SCT use may require strategies aimed at overcoming barriers to the delivery of SCS.

Tobacco Induced DiseasesVol. 24(May)
National Cancer Center (US), National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center (JP), National Cancer Research Institute (GB), The University of Tokyo (JP), Teikyo University (JP)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.